COMMISSIONER TIRUPPUR CORPORATION Vs. P RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the Writ Appeals are directed against the order dated 03.08.2017 made in W.P.No.2263/2015 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, they were heard together and they are disposed of by this Common Judgment.

(2.) The order of suspension of the writ petitioner dated 01.09.2012 and the rejection of appeal in Proceedings dated 06.05.2014 were under challenge in the Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by setting aside the order of suspension and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 6.5.2014. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents therein are before this Court with these Writ Appeals.

(3.) At the outset, it appears that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Engineer (Planning) and on account of certain allegations and with regard to registration of FIR. No.7/2012/AC/CB by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore, dated 31.08.2012, he was placed under suspension and after filing of the charge sheet, the same was taken on file in C.C.No.21/2014 before the Special Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tiruppur. Since it would take considerable time for disposal of the said criminal case, according to the writ petitioner/1st respondent, prolonged suspension is not advisable and it is a loss to the State Exchequer, in view of the fact that the respondents therein/appellants herein have to pay Subsistence Allowance of 75% to him without extracting any work from the employee. Thus, it is advisable that such employee who are facing criminal proceedings shall be reinstated and they may be allowed to work in any non-sensitive post as per the orders of the Department, provided the suspension continues beyond reasonable time. That apart, by relying on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.1398/2015 dated 21.10.2016 wherein the impugned order of prolonged suspension was set aside and the appeal preferred against the same by the State in W.A.No.613/2017 was also dismissed, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent herein sought to give the same treatment to the 1st respondent herein. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Appeals have been filed by the State.